Thinking and communicating with clarity and precision
"“To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others.” -Anthony Robbins
Science is the art of precision. That statement is almost an inherent paradox—art is about the soul, the beauty of things, and there is nothing “exact” about art (it’s an arbitrary word describing an intangible arbitrary thing). Nevertheless, science wants to find the precision of each situation in order to come up with a reasonable conclusion. Thus, communicating “with clarity and precision” refers to the use of precise words to convey an idea. For example, every time we asked for lab materials from the lab assistant, we had to be extremely clear about what we wanted (a 100mL beaker, a 10mL glass pipette, etc). In addition, saying "move that thing over here" is obviously not as nice (or as clear/precise) as saying "push that desk over here under the flag," since we now know what "that thing" and "over here" is.
However, when I think of “thinking and communicating with clarity and precision,” I think of it in terms of a teaching context—when you try to teach a concept to someone else. One of the most annoying things ever is when people do not understand what you are saying, while you think of every conceivable way known to mankind to explain it.
But one major aspect of “thinking and communicating with clarity and precision” is that we have to be fairly confident of what we’re trying to communicate. If we are not certain what we’re saying, this could lead to many misconceptions and miscommunications. That was the main flaw of my chemistry experiment presentation about primary standards and standard solutions—I just felt quite uncertain about what I was talking about, and because I couldn’t straighten it out in my head. Hence, obviously when I was explaining it to others, my explanation would be lacking in coherence and clarity. Unfortunately, since my experiment had to be well-explained first in order for people to understand my research question—since no one knew what “primary standard” meant before this, I felt that my presentation was just an overall trainwreck. Trainwreck in this context is defined to be something that is such an “epic failure” that people can’t help but stare in morbid fascination. I could see people’s eyes look at me in confusion, especially when I talked about standardization.
Probably the habit I will have to work on the most, particularly because I become less and less coherent as sleep debt accumulates. D:
Figure 1: A list that was meant to be extremely precise. :D
Thinking and communicating with clarity and precision
"“To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others.” -Anthony Robbins
Science is the art of precision. That statement is almost an inherent paradox—art is about the soul, the beauty of things, and there is nothing “exact” about art (it’s an arbitrary word describing an intangible arbitrary thing). Nevertheless, science wants to find the precision of each situation in order to come up with a reasonable conclusion. Thus, communicating “with clarity and precision” refers to the use of precise words to convey an idea. For example, every time we asked for lab materials from the lab assistant, we had to be extremely clear about what we wanted (a 100mL beaker, a 10mL glass pipette, etc). In addition, saying "move that thing over here" is obviously not as nice (or as clear/precise) as saying "push that desk over here under the flag," since we now know what "that thing" and "over here" is.
However, when I think of “thinking and communicating with clarity and precision,” I think of it in terms of a teaching context—when you try to teach a concept to someone else. One of the most annoying things ever is when people do not understand what you are saying, while you think of every conceivable way known to mankind to explain it.
But one major aspect of “thinking and communicating with clarity and precision” is that we have to be fairly confident of what we’re trying to communicate. If we are not certain what we’re saying, this could lead to many misconceptions and miscommunications. That was the main flaw of my chemistry experiment presentation about primary standards and standard solutions—I just felt quite uncertain about what I was talking about, and because I couldn’t straighten it out in my head. Hence, obviously when I was explaining it to others, my explanation would be lacking in coherence and clarity. Unfortunately, since my experiment had to be well-explained first in order for people to understand my research question—since no one knew what “primary standard” meant before this, I felt that my presentation was just an overall trainwreck. Trainwreck in this context is defined to be something that is such an “epic failure” that people can’t help but stare in morbid fascination. I could see people’s eyes look at me in confusion, especially when I talked about standardization.
Probably the habit I will have to work on the most, particularly because I become less and less coherent as sleep debt accumulates. D:
Figure 1: A list that was meant to be extremely precise. :D